netdev - Re: [PATCH ethtool v2 08/13] ethtool: fix runtime errors found by sanitizers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <dc08b6de-4bef-6439-ef6d-a8d667621963@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2022 14:09:30 -0800
From:   Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ethtool v2 08/13] ethtool: fix runtime errors found by
 sanitizers

On 12/9/2022 10:09 AM, Michal Kubecek wrote:
>> I'll do it whichever way you like, but you're correct, later in this series
>> I fix up all the BIT() usages. Maybe we can just leave this patch as is,
>> knowing the full fix comes during the refactor in 10/13 ?
> 
> As we end up with BIT() everywhere anyway, I'm OK with either option,
> leaving this patch as it is or dropping it. When I was writing that
> comment, I had seen 09/13 (introduction of BIT()) but not 10/13
> (refactoring everything to use it).

Ok, thanks. Also Jakub pointed out to me there is a UAPI compliant 
_BITUL()/_BITULL() function in include/uapi/linux/const.h, which I'll 
switch 9 and 10 to using. Wish that function had been a tad more 
discoverable.